Bagehot

Why mayors matter

Foes of elected mayors spy a Trojan horse for radical reform; they are right

LIKE many entrepreneurs, Rob Law—designer of the Trunki, a wheeled children's suitcase that can be ridden by small, tired owners—is impatient with established ideas. A cross between a toy and luggage, his creation at first baffled buyers from big shops and was turned down by “Dragon's Den”, a televised talent show for inventors. He has since sold more than 1.25m of them.

Mr Law's design studio in the south-western city of Bristol is built to resemble a space-station, boasting dummy portholes offering galactic views and an escape slide to carry staff between floors. Next month he will bring a big chunk of production back from China to a factory in England—betting that shorter lead times, lower transport costs and a redesign eliminating two dozen parts will make British manufacture pay.

On May 3rd Bristol will be one of ten English cities to hold a referendum on whether to stick with rule by council committee or hand powers to a directly elected mayor. Mr Law is keen on change. The Bristol area is a good place for business—home to two universities, aerospace firms and the animation studios behind Wallace and Gromit. But it could be better, he says. Transport is a mess, and key bits of infrastructure are missing. Bristol is “treading water”, says Mr Law. It needs a champion to get things moving, just as London's mayor champions the capital.

Another businessman, George Ferguson—an architect and owner of a theatre, brewery and independent retail complex—will stand as an independent if the mayoral referendum passes. Mr Ferguson, a Liberal councillor decades ago, now thinks non-partisan mayors have the best chance of representing a diverse city of sharp inequalities. He quotes graffiti from a tough city district: “Whoever you vote for, the council wins.”

Though the big national parties are divided over mayors, three of Bristol's four MPs broadly favour change. One, the Liberal Democrat Stephen Williams, says he may run for the post himself. Charlotte Leslie, a Conservative, argues that the status quo—by which council leaders are chosen from among the city's 70 councillors amid much horse-trading—drives local disgust with politics. It does not help that Bristol holds partial council elections in three out of every four years. Bristolians are fed up, she says. If they realise that choosing an accountable mayor is a vote against politics as usual, then the referendum can be won.

The municipal establishment broadly opposes elected mayors. Their reasons include the risks of populism and reduced influence for local councillors. The current council leader, Barbara Janke, a Liberal Democrat, adds that the precise powers of city mayors have not been spelled out. Moreover, she sniffs, America has lots of elected mayors and “quite a few” have been corrupt.

Bill Martin, a Labour alderman and head of Bristol's No campaign, is concerned that the new mayors will be able to take decisions with the backing of just one-third of councillors. To him, that smacks of a Tory plot to ram through changes such as the privatisation of council services. Campaigners against an elected Bristol mayor stress that such a city boss will cost money—almost a pound per resident for each mayoral election, they claim, plus a salary for a new “political fat cat”. In short, both the No and the Yes campaigns are appealing to the anti-politics mood.

To be fair, not all those wary of change are local grandees. Beast, a clothes shop, makes T-shirts celebrating local speech that are famed city-wide (and sold to homesick Bristolians worldwide). Top-selling shirts proclaim “Gert Lush” (slang for “good”), “Ark at ee” (look at/listen to that) and “Cheers Drive” (used when stepping off a Bristol bus). Beast's co-founder, Lucy Wheeler, is “kind of happy with how things are”. She worries about giving one person too much power, preferring rule by a group.

When it comes to attitudes to elected city bosses, the dividing line is not a neat one between left and right. Tony Blair's Labour government promoted directly elected mayors; some Tories think them a gift to Labour, dominant in many cities.

Democracy out of shape, Bristol-fashion

Listen to the debate around Bristol's referendum—set to be among the closest-fought of the ten—and the two sides do not wholly disagree. Above all, opponents fear that mayors are intended to push radical reform. They are right: that is why mayors are a good idea. Arguably, the dispute is between those who prize solidarity and consensus as bulwarks of a good society, and those who place their trust in staying competitive in a fast-changing world. Those who favour mayors are in the latter camp: a city only needs a champion if it plans to compete.

Elected mayors will have a personal democratic mandate to “deliver change”, says the Conservative cities minister, Greg Clark. Council leaders have no such city-wide mandate, nor the accountability that comes with high visibility. Mayors will have at least the powers of a council leader. Mr Clark expects most to demand more powers, over transport, housing and so on—just as London's mayors have grabbed powers over policing and planning. They will find a government “ready to negotiate”.

Will that be enough to produce Yes votes in next month's referendums? Turnout will be low, making results hard to predict. Yet the government's yearning to break up municipal vested interests is real. That lends credibility to talk of devolving powers to mayors. It would be depressing if the public's anger runs so deep that, just now, political power cannot even be given away.